Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> As an aside, putting 'evil' in your licence is pretty dumb. There is no definition of evil which can be argued over in any court. What you consider 'good', someone else almost certainly considers 'evil'

People keep arguing that the license is bad because "evil" is ambiguous. But there's a legal concept called "Contra proferentem", which stipulates that ambiguity in a contract (or license) benefits the party which did not draft it. Crockford's clause has no force because he drafted it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_proferentem



Contra proferentem is all good and well but you still have to go to court and argue your case, which wastes $1000s of dollars. Ambiguity is expensive.


Even then, do you really want to go to court about it?


> Crockford's clause has no force because he drafted it.

Am I the only one who finds it concerning that a clause which legally cannot be enforced is placed into a license anyways? I'm not sure how this helps the complaints against the JSLint license.


While it would be nice to have a license static checker that removes unused clauses, I'm not sure that's actually possible.

It might be possible to write an obfuscator though...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: